-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
liability
- Thread starter larry1950
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
teflon_jones
Senior Member
As the registered owner you're liable for the actions of anybody that drives it
How much liability insurance do you have on the car? You should inform your insurance company that you're getting sued.
How much liability insurance do you have on the car? You should inform your insurance company that you're getting sued.
teflon_jones
Senior Member
Was your friend cited for the accident? Did he appeal any tickets he received or did he just pay them? Who did the police report state was at fault? Has your insurance company indicated who they feel is at fault? What were the injuries to the other party that they sueing for (breakdown of the $475K sought).
Litigation!
Senior Member
You Had Just The Right Amount Of Coverage - - In This Situation . . .
My response:
You are the owner of a vehicle, permissibly loaned to your friend. By statute, the owner of a motor vehicle is vicariously liable for death or injury to person or property resulting from the wrongful (negligent or intentional) operation of the vehicle by any person using it with the owner's express or implied permission. [Ca Vehicle § 17150]
The statute is an outgrowth of the overriding public policy interest in protecting innocent third parties from injury at the hands of careless drivers: "[T]his protection should be paramount to the rights of an owner who has permitted the use of his car by others even though he, personally, was not guilty of negligence." [Burgess v. Cahill (1945) 26 Cal.2d 320, 323, 158 P.2d 393, 394]
Like the doctrine of respondeat superior, the "permissive use" statute imputes liability without regard to the owner's culpability. Since the vehicle owner's liability is not "based on principles of comparative fault" (Ca Civil § 1431.2(a)), Proposition 51 does not limit the owner's noneconomic damages liability when that liability rests solely on the permissive use statute. [Rashtian v. BRAC-BH, Inc. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1847, 1854, 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 411, 416]
For purposes of permissive use liability, owner and driver are treated as a single tortfeasor: "Whatever noneconomic damages are properly charged to the operator are likewise the burden of the owner." [Rashtian v. BRAC-BH, Inc., supra, 9 Cal.App.4th at 1854, 12 Cal.Rptr.2d at 416; see also Galvis v. Petito (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 551, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 560, 568; and Miller v. Stouffer (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 70, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 454]
However, Ca Vehicle § 17150 does not create "true" vicarious liability . . . because the statute also puts a dollar cap on the owner's exposure: Permissive use liability cannot exceed $15,000 per injury, $30,000 per occurrence, and $5,000 for property damage; nor can the driver's punitive damages liability be imputed to the owner. [Ca Vehicle § 17151; see Ca Vehicle § 17155--total $30,000 settlement limits]
IAAL
larry1950 said:
My response:
You are the owner of a vehicle, permissibly loaned to your friend. By statute, the owner of a motor vehicle is vicariously liable for death or injury to person or property resulting from the wrongful (negligent or intentional) operation of the vehicle by any person using it with the owner's express or implied permission. [Ca Vehicle § 17150]
The statute is an outgrowth of the overriding public policy interest in protecting innocent third parties from injury at the hands of careless drivers: "[T]his protection should be paramount to the rights of an owner who has permitted the use of his car by others even though he, personally, was not guilty of negligence." [Burgess v. Cahill (1945) 26 Cal.2d 320, 323, 158 P.2d 393, 394]
Like the doctrine of respondeat superior, the "permissive use" statute imputes liability without regard to the owner's culpability. Since the vehicle owner's liability is not "based on principles of comparative fault" (Ca Civil § 1431.2(a)), Proposition 51 does not limit the owner's noneconomic damages liability when that liability rests solely on the permissive use statute. [Rashtian v. BRAC-BH, Inc. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1847, 1854, 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 411, 416]
For purposes of permissive use liability, owner and driver are treated as a single tortfeasor: "Whatever noneconomic damages are properly charged to the operator are likewise the burden of the owner." [Rashtian v. BRAC-BH, Inc., supra, 9 Cal.App.4th at 1854, 12 Cal.Rptr.2d at 416; see also Galvis v. Petito (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 551, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 560, 568; and Miller v. Stouffer (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 70, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 454]
However, Ca Vehicle § 17150 does not create "true" vicarious liability . . . because the statute also puts a dollar cap on the owner's exposure: Permissive use liability cannot exceed $15,000 per injury, $30,000 per occurrence, and $5,000 for property damage; nor can the driver's punitive damages liability be imputed to the owner. [Ca Vehicle § 17151; see Ca Vehicle § 17155--total $30,000 settlement limits]
IAAL
Litigation!
Senior Member
larry1950 said:
My response:
You're welcome. But, I strongly encourage you to bump up your coverages. This could have easily been YOUR accident, and YOUR fault. Then, where would you be?
IAAL
Liability
My friend was driving my work truck because his van was broke down, he is part of the law suit and he wasn't ticketed for rear ending the other car. He was stopped at a traffic light and remembers the car starting to go, looked down for something and the other car stopped. The estimated speed was 5-10 mph. The other driver wanted to fight before the police got there. He then took himself to the hospital complaining of back and neck pain....his wife jumped on board of the lawsuit and said she has lost most of her husbands usefullness...thus the 475,000. dollars demanded in the lawsuit.
My friend was driving my work truck because his van was broke down, he is part of the law suit and he wasn't ticketed for rear ending the other car. He was stopped at a traffic light and remembers the car starting to go, looked down for something and the other car stopped. The estimated speed was 5-10 mph. The other driver wanted to fight before the police got there. He then took himself to the hospital complaining of back and neck pain....his wife jumped on board of the lawsuit and said she has lost most of her husbands usefullness...thus the 475,000. dollars demanded in the lawsuit.
Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!
Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">